Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, we're not really in the same boat as you. What we don't do that you and maybe 2 or 3 other people in the world do (I don't how many share your view of Rev 20, but it can't be many) is deny that the thousand years represents an actual period of time with a beginning and an ending that is followed by an actual short period of time. We're in the same boat as Premils in that sense.
Unlike you and your Full Preterist brethren, the biblical writers were not fixated with some imaginary coming of Jesus in AD70. They were focused on His first coming and His earthly ministry and His literal physical visible final climactic return. These 2 Advents were the NT focus. Before His future return we see the outline of a period of time when wickedness, perversion, corruption, and consequently persecution will increase.
The end-time Church is portrayed as an apathetic Church; a Church that is going through the motions, a Church that has lost its spark. It has lost its way. It is a Church that has all the outward form without the inward reality. It has basically lost its zeal. It is uncommitted and unfaithful. It is impotent and faithless.
II Thessalonians 2:1-8 says, “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming [Gr. parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the Christ is at hand is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [Gr. apostasía or apostasy] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth (or restraineth) that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming [Gr. parousia].”
This tells me that there is going to be a great decline within the Church prior to Jesus return.
Strong's explains: defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.
Thayer explains: a falling away, defection, apostasy
Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt, from apo-histasthai to stand — more at stand
No wonder Jesus asked in Luke 18:8 talking about the day of His return: “when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
Obviously by this question we can deduce: Faith is going to be rare when He comes.
They say that you judge a man by his questions not by his answers because questions come from the heart. Here is a question from the heart of Christ – who is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Jesus said in Matt 24:12: “iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”
As much as I would love to tell you that things are going to get better out there the Bible says the opposite.
2 Timothy 3:5 describes last days church members as: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Matthew 24:35-41 continues: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming [Gr. parousia] of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one ‘shall be taken’ [Gr. paralambano], and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one ‘shall be taken’ [Gr. paralambano], and the other left.”
The Lord uses the word parousia again in v 37 to equate the days preceding His coming to the days preceding Noah’s entry into the ark, saying, “as the days of Noe were, so shall also the parousia of the Son of man be.” In His reply, Christ confirmed, what the disciples already seem to have rightly comprehended, in their questioning, that His next Coming is His last and only future coming and that it ushers in “the end of the world (or age)”
We note three particular characteristics of this day, which will be repeated at the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. (1) The wicked lived as if there was no judgement coming, verse 38 says, “they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage.” (2) The wicked were caught unexpected, verse 39 says, they “knew not until the flood came.” And finally, (3) the wicked were ALL destroyed, verse 39 says, “the flood came, and took them all away.”
Thus, the second coming of the Lord shall come in like manner, verse 39 confirms, “so shall also the parousia of the Son of man be.
There's no irony here whatsoever because the contexts are completely different. There's a huge difference between saying that the thousand years is not a literal thousand years but does represent an actual period of time with a beginning and ending, as Amils do, and saying that the thousand years does not represent an actual time period with a beginning and ending at all, as you do.I’ve seen premils claim that amils rip the millennium out of the text based on interpreting it differently. That’s all I meant. So it’s ironic to claim I rip out the millennium from the text just because i interpret it differently.
This is how we are in the same boat.But yes, amils would be in the same boat as premils for interpreting satan being bound for a long period of time followed by being released for a short period of time
We're not in the same boat as Premils in this sense. I don't appreciate you acting like you agreed with me, but then you added this part that I did not say. That was deceptive and falsely represented what I said. Why would you do that? It's not okay to do that.without any gospel/epistolic evidence.
Do you understand that not all prophecy is written in chronological order? Take the book of Revelation, for example. You don't believe everything written in the book should be taken in chronological order, right? If we did that then we'd have to conclude that the birth and ascension of Jesus occurred before the seventh trumpet sounded, which is obviously ridiculous.Jesus did say that lawlessness and those falling away would occur. But that’s listed prior to the great tribulation of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:10-11, Luke 21:16, mark 13:12.
Yes, it's true that there were already some antichrists and scoffers back then, but that doesn't mean "the last days" only referred to the time leading up to 70 AD. No. The last days, which had started already by the time the day of Pentecost came long ago (Acts 2:16-21) lead up to the second coming of Christ at which point the heavens and the earth will be burned up (2 Peter 3:3-13). What both Jesus and Paul talked about was a time period during which these things would occur much more frequently which would result in a mass falling away from the faith. John and Jude said nothing about a mass falling away from the faith as having already occurred back then.As to 2 Timothy 3:5, John and Jude already indicate that this was happening. 1 John 2:18-19 states many Antichrists have come and gone out from the church, that is how they knew it was the last hour. Jude exhorts his audience to hold onto the original faith as many have crept into the church to pervert the original doctrines. Jude goes on to state that these are the scoffers of the last days that the apostles had talked about (Jude 1:17-19).
Yes, but that was only to an extent. You're missing that Paul talked about lawlessness being restrained to an extent at that point (to allow the gospel to be preached throughout the world - without that restraint the word of God would have been completely hindered from going out into the world like it was in Old Testament times). And he talked about it being unrestrained at a later time which would result in a mass falling away from the faith and increase in wickedness.As to 2 Thessalonians 2, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work- present tense verb (2 Thessalonians 2:7) and the man of sin was already existing by the works of Satan- present tense verb (2 Thessalonians 2:9).
Was he able to do these things to the same extent as he was during Old Testament times? Clearly not since we know that far more people, and at a far higher percentage of the world, have heard the word of God and have been saved in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. Why do you never think about that? You, like most Premils, act as if nothing changed at all when it comes to Satan's activities between Old Testament and New Testament times which couldn't be further from the truth.Based on your argument I have no idea how you come to the understanding that Satan’s little season only refers to the revealing of the man of sin, when Satan was already deceiving as an angel of light, blinding the minds of unbelievers, working through the sons of disobedience, prowling and looking to devour, throwing saints in prison, and even killing them.
That's your opinion, but I disagree with your opinion. You're not differentiating between those things being around in general to some extent and them being around in an increased capacity during Satan's little season.Additionally, we have clear scripture that teaches many antichrists had already come and gone out from the church, and that the last days scoffers had already crept into the church to pervert the teachings of the apostles.
Your main sources for Satan’s little season are still unfortunately highly symbolic and debatable texts
Let me be clear. I could not care less if you accept the evidence I give for Satan's little season or not. You're just one person. Doesn't matter to me. Take it or leave it.I mean, if you were to ask a premil for clear and explicit teachings about the millennium from other scriptures in order to support their interpretation of the millennium, and they provided more highly debated passages such Zechariah 14 or Isaiah 65, or Ezekiel 38-39, should I assume that you would take those passages as acceptable evidence for premil? Based on your past conversations with premil, something tells me no……..
I don't understand what you're saying here at all. To me, it's clear that Paul talks about the man of sin/that wicked coming at some point in the future by the works of Satan "with all power and signs and lying wonders", not as existing yet at the time. He talked about the mass falling away from the faith and the man of sin sitting in the temple of God (the church) in a future sense.as for 2 Thessalonians 2:
The “mystery” of lawlessness was already work-present tense verb- (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and the man of sin was already existing -present tense verb- by the works of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9). If he didn’t exist yet, not sure how he would be restrained? If you disagree, I would be interested in understanding why.
Grammatically, the man of sin exists in a restrained state before the restrainer is removed, but does not yet exist by the works of Satan "with all power and signs and lying wonders" until the restrainer is removed. Grammatically, the man of sin is not yet sitting in the temple of God exalting himself above God, thereby making himself God, until the restrainer is removed. The mass falling away and the resulting increase in wickedness that Paul referenced does not happen until the restrainer is removed.Grammatically, The restrainer being removed would “reveal” the man of sin that was already existing by the works of Satan and the lawlessness that was already at work.
How convenient to just throw out a verse that doesn't support your view. I just looked at several English translations of that verse and they all refer to God sending strong delusion in the future tense. So, I guess all those translators didn't know what they were doing?***As far as God sending the delusion, the TR has future tense but the Mgnt has present tense. Both passages contain past tense of “did not receive the truth”. Due to the differences in manuscripts, I’ll throw this one out, though my personal preference is the Mgnt***
Not just related to the revealing of the man of sin, but also to the mass falling away from the faith. Amils, of course, don't deny that Satan was doing the things you mentioned to an extent already in Paul's day. But, that isn't what his binding is about. You're doing the same thing Premils do by assuming that if Satan is active at all then he can't be bound. But, his binding is a restraint to keep him from keeping the world in darkness in the same way he was able to do in Old Testament times.I’m just struggling to understand your position how Satan’s little season is solely related to the revealing of the man of sin, when he was already deceiving as an angel of light, working through the sons of disobedience, blinding unbelievers, prowling and looking to devour, leading some astray, throwing saints in prison, and even killing saints.
There's no irony here whatsoever because the contexts are completely different. There's a huge difference between saying that the thousand years is not a literal thousand years but does represent an actual period of time with a beginning and ending, as Amils do, and saying that the thousand years does not represent an actual time period with a beginning and ending at all, as you do.
CorrectThis is how we are in the same boat.
Ok then provide any clear teaching from the apostles that teach Satan is bound for a long period of time and then will be released to war against the church. Please avoid using highly debatable and symbolic passages in the same manner that premil would use to prove a future literal millennium.We're not in the same boat as Premils in this sense. I don't appreciate you acting like you agreed with me, but then you added this part that I did not say. That was deceptive and falsely represented what I said. Why would you do that? It's not okay to do that.
Do you understand that not all prophecy is written in chronological order? Take the book of Revelation, for example. You don't believe everything written in the book should be taken in chronological order, right? If we did that then we'd have to conclude that the birth and ascension of Jesus occurred before the seventh trumpet sounded, which is obviously ridiculous.
I believe this concept is true of the Olivet Discourse as well. I do not believe that what Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:15-21 was intended to be understood as things that would chronologically occur after what was described in the verses previous to that passage.
I believe Paul wrote of the same mass falling away and increase in wickedness that Jesus talked about (in 2 Thess 2:1-12) and he indicated that it would occur just before the coming of Christ when we are gathered to Him in the future. So, that is why I believe Jesus started by talking about things related to His coming and the end of the age that He was asked about, then switched to talking about things related to the destruction of the temple buildings that He was asked about, and then switched back to talking about things related to His coming and the end of the age again after that.
Yes, it's true that there were already some antichrists and scoffers back then, but that doesn't mean "the last days" only referred to the time leading up to 70 AD. No. The last days, which had started already by the time the day of Pentecost came long ago (Acts 2:16-21) lead up to the second coming of Christ at which point the heavens and the earth will be burned up (2 Peter 3:3-13). What both Jesus and Paul talked about was a time period during which these things would occur much more frequently which would result in a mass falling away from the faith. John and Jude said nothing about a mass falling away from the faith as having already occurred back then.
People have been falling away from the faith for a long time, but Jesus and Paul both indicated there would be a time when there would be a major increase of that occurring along with a major increase in wickedness. No time like that happened in the past. But, I think that time could have started in recent years because I am hearing about many Christian leaders as having fallen away in recent years. That leads to many of their followers falling away as well. And if you don't think that wickedness has been increasing in recent years, then you are not paying attention. Look at the acceptance of the LGBTQ community, for example. That has only been a more recent development (not just in the U.S., either). In a relatively short amount of time the culture went from making gays and lesbians try to hide that they were gay or lesbian to having gay pride parades and pride months. That has led to more people becoming gay, lesbian, etc. because they think not only is there nothing wrong with it, but it's something to be proud of. If that isn't evidence of a major increase in wickedness, I don't know what is. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the kind of wickedness that we're seeing today.
Yes, but that was only to an extent. You're missing that Paul talked about lawlessness being restrained to an extent at that point (to allow the gospel to be preached throughout the world - without that restraint the word of God would have been completely hindered from going out into the world like it was in Old Testament times). And he talked about it being unrestrained at a later time which would result in a mass falling away from the faith and increase in wickedness.
What you seem to be missing is that Paul talked about the mass falling away from the faith in the future tense. He did not say that it was already happening in his day. He spoke about it the same way he spoke about it here:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Here, Paul clearly refers to a departing or falling away from the faith in the future during what he calls "the latter times". So, your contention that he was talking about things that were already occurring in his day is just not true.
Was he able to do these things to the same extent as he was during Old Testament times? Clearly not since we know that far more people, and at a far higher percentage of the world, have heard the word of God and have been saved in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. Why do you never think about that? You, like most Premils, act as if nothing changed at all when it comes to Satan's activities between Old Testament and New Testament times which couldn't be further from the truth.
That's your opinion, but I disagree with your opinion. You're not differentiating between those things being around in general to some extent and them being around in an increased capacity during Satan's little season.
But, unlike you, we actually acknowledge the existence of Satan's little season as being an actual period of time on the earth. I see that as a far bigger problem for you than you see for us in thinking that our view of Satan's little season is based on "highly symbolic and debatable texts". Your view of Satan's little season is based on nothing in scripture at all. You just deny its existence which scripture never does.
You base Satan’s little season on highly debatable texts such as revelation 20 and 2 Thessalonians 2. I base Satan’s little season on passages such as Ephesians 2:1-2, 1 Peter 5:8, 1 Timothy 5:15, revelation 2:10, 13, 2 Corinthians 11:14, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Romans 16:20. So to say I base it on nothing at all, is completely untrue.
Let me be clear. I could not care less if you accept the evidence I give for Satan's little season or not. You're just one person. Doesn't matter to me. Take it or leave it.
How convenient to just throw out a verse that doesn't support your view.
I don't understand what you're saying here at all. To me, it's clear that Paul talks about the man of sin/that wicked coming at some point in the future by the works of Satan "with all power and signs and lying wonders", not as existing yet at the time. He talked about the mass falling away from the faith and the man of sin sitting in the temple of God (the church) in a future sense.
Grammatically, the man of sin exists in a restrained state before the restrainer is removed, but does not yet exist by the works of Satan "with all power and signs and lying wonders" until the restrainer is removed. Grammatically, the man of sin is not yet sitting in the temple of God exalting himself above God, thereby making himself God, until the restrainer is removed. The mass falling away and the resulting increase in wickedness that Paul referenced does not happen until the restrainer is removed.
You are missing the difference between how things are when they are restrained compared to how they are when they are not restrained. You're acting as if Paul didn't talk at all about things getting worse at some point. He clearly did. He wasn't just pointing out obvious things like that wickedness existed and that people fell away from the faith. Everyone knew that already. Why would he do that? No, he was talking about things that were already happening, but they were being restrained at that time in his day, but one day would no longer be restrained.
Because of wickedness no longer being restrained at some point in the future (during the time we Amils consider to be Satan's little season), a mass falling away would occur. People, including the ones who fall away, will be exposed/revealed for who they really are. They may pretend to be in the church, but their beliefs and actions will reveal that they no longer trust in Christ and submit to God and essentially have made themselves to be God since they no longer believe in Him and no longer believe they need Him and only need themselves.
How convenient to just throw out a verse that doesn't support your view. I just looked at several English translations of that verse and they all refer to God sending strong delusion in the future tense. So, I guess all those translators didn't know what they were doing?
As for the past tense of "did not receive the truth", the verse in which that is contained is still speaking in the future tense.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
So, God sending strong delusion is future, them believing a lie after the strong delusion is sent is future, and them being damned is future. The reason that the reference to those who "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" is in past tense is because Paul was speaking from the standpoint of the time after God's strong delusion and them believing the lie had occurred. That's the only way to read the text as a whole where it can make sense. Otherwise, he was first talking about something happening in the future (them believing a lie) and then saying it happened already in the past (believed not the truth)? That obviously would make no sense at all.
Since he was clearly talking about a future event of God sending strong delusion and people believing a lie in verse 11, then verse 12 has to be interpreted in that context.
Not just related to the revealing of the man of sin, but also to the mass falling away from the faith. Amils, of course, don't deny that Satan was doing the things you mentioned to an extent already in Paul's day. But, that isn't what his binding is about. You're doing the same thing Premils do by assuming that if Satan is active at all then he can't be bound. But, his binding is a restraint to keep him from keeping the world in darkness in the same way he was able to do in Old Testament times.
Can you not see the tremendous difference in the number of those who have been saved in New Testament times compared to Old Testament times? Do you think nothing had to happen in relation to Satan in order for that to happen? In Hebrews 2:14-15 it says he, before the death of Christ, held the power of death and used that to keep a vast majority of the world in spiritual darkness and kept them in slavery to the fear of death. Has that not changed dramatically in New Testament times? Of course it has. Why is this not something that you take into consideration?
Hopefully you can at least follow what I'm trying to say below, even if you end up disagreeing, where I suspect you likely will since Premil appears to be the only solution here, as I try to explain below.
If satan's little season is pertaining to this age, though I tend to disagree that it is, these passages you supplied in support of that are perfectly reasonable, thus make perfect sense. Once again, assuming satan's little season is indeed pertaining to this age.
Where the problem lies with this view though, the thousand years have to precede satan's little season. Which then means you need to find an era of time where none of those verses you submitted, were true yet, since the thousand years would have to fit an era of time that those verses you supplied can't fit. This is where Premil comes to the rescue since it can produce an era of time those verses you submitted can't fit.
Therefore, unless you can produce an era of time where those verses you submitted can't fit, you are in the same boat these other Amils are in. You can only produce an era of time where those verses you submitted can fit, and that you can't also produce an era of time where those verses can't fit. Obviously, the era of time involving the thousand years can't be the same era of time involving satan's little season, and that the thousand years have to precede satan's little season.
I don't see it being reasonable that there can be an era of time involving satan's little season, thus the verses you submitted, once again, that assuming satan's little season pertains to this age, while there is not an era of time that can fit the thousand years, meaning an era of time not involving any of the verses you submitted. Premil solves this dilemma, IMO.
BTW, can't you see what you are basically doing here? On one hand you are denying that there is an actual era of time involving the thousand years, while OTOH you are confirming eras of time are connected with these things, the fact you are applying passages to that of satan's little season, where those passages that you supplied are literally involving eras of time.
For example. 1 Peter 5:8. Are those things still going to be applicable once satan is cast into the LOF? Obviously, no. Shouldn't the same be true regarding the thousand years? If, when satan is in the LOF, it involves a literal era of time, why would it not also be involving an era of time when he is in the pit? Is not, when satan is cast into the LOF, also an era of time since the text indicates he will be tormented there forever and ever? Obviously then, if you are applying 1 Peter 5:8 to satan's little season, you are then implying that satan's little season involves a literal era of time, the fact 1 Peter 5:8 obviously involves a literal era of time. Logic then says, if satan's little season involves a literal era of time, then so must the thousand years involve a literal era of time, otherwise, that interpreter is not being consistent.
So, I accused you of being deceptive and falsely representing what I said and you don't even deny it. And you don't even apologize for doing that. Interesting.Ok then provide any clear teaching from the apostles that teach Satan is bound for a long period of time and then will be released to war against the church. Please avoid using highly debatable and symbolic passages in the same manner that premil would use to prove a future literal millennium.
A single discourse where Jesus was answering two questions and not just one. He was not obligated to answer the first one completely and then the second one in chronological order. But, of course, you deny that He was asked two questions, so as long as we disagree on that, we will never agree on the rest of it.the olivet discourse is not a series of visions spanning a whole book. It’s a single discourse.
No, I was not. I was talking about Bible prophecy in general as not always being in chronological order and that is true. I'm comparing one Bible prophecy to another Bible prophecy with the understanding that any given Bible prophecy may not all be written in chronological order since that is not how Bible prophecy works.I know you don’t take revelation 8 as chronologically before revelation 12. But your comparing apples to oranges
Why would you only use examples found within the same chapters as if the Bible was originally written with chapter breaks? I do put Revelation 12:5 prior to Revelation 11:15-19. I put Revelation 20:1 before Revelation 19:11-21. And so on. So, I don't see how I supposedly am being irrelevant or inconsistent.For example you don’t chronologically put revelation 12:13 prior to revelation 12:2-3 or revelation 20:12-15 prior to revelation 20:1-4, do you? If you did then that would be consistent with putting Matthew 24:15-21 prior to Matthew 24:9-14. So i don’t see your example as relevant or consistent.
I believe Paul was speaking only of the known world at the time while I believe Jesus was speaking more literally of the entire world, including what wasn't known about yet back then.Additionally if Matthew 24:9-14 is supposed to be understood as after matthew 24:15-21, we have another problem.
1.) Paul said the gospel had gone out to the whole “oikoumene” and to every creature under heaven ( Romans 10:17-18, Colossians 1:23).
Your biggest problem is that you don't look at the big picture. You don't take all scripture into account when you look at these things. Paul wrote of a mass falling away occurring before the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him, which is an obvious reference to the event he had written about in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 (I'm speaking of His coming and our being gathered to Him specifically here). That has not yet happened.2.) John said MANY Antichrists had appeared and gone out from the church, that is how they knew it was the last hour (1 John 2:18-19). Notice the definition of the word “many”. It’s the same “many” as used in Matthew 24:10. John literally states that MANY antichrists have come and have gone out from the them. It’s literally how the knew it was the last hour. John literally talks about a mass falling away, contrary to what you just said.
“polýs – many (high in number); multitudinous, plenteous, "much"; "great" in amount (extent).
4183 /polýs ("much in number") emphasizes the quantity involved. 4183(polýs) "signifies 'many, numerous'; . . . with the article it is said of a multitude as being numerous" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 113,114) – i.e. great in amount.”
I never denied this. I have said several times that I believe the last days span the entire New Testament time period. Peter indicated that they were in the last days already on the day of Pentecost long ago (Acts 2:16-21). The last days continue up until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4). What was the point in bringing this up exactly?3.) last days scoffers were already in the church and perverting it’s doctrines according to Jude.
To an extent, but it was restrained. But, Paul talked about it no longer being restrained at some point in the future.As to the mystery of lawlessness, it was already at work According to Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:7).
That's my interpretation. Don't act like I'm trying to add words to scripture. I'm not. Paul did talk about lawlessness being restrained up to that point and it would no longer be restrained when "he is taken out of the way", which I understand to be a reference the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit being taken away, resulting in the loosing of Satan so that he can then do his works "with all power and signs and lying wonders" (2 Thess 2:9).I don’t see anywhere that lawlessness is restrained so that the gospel can be spread. That seems to be your own addition.
I already addressed this above.As to the “mass” falling away see 1 John 2:18-19, which has MANY antichrists coming and going out from the church, thus revealing it was the LAST HOUR.
This is all you have to say about the difference in Satan's abilities in OT times compared to NT times? Unbelievable. How many people were saved in OT times compared to NT times? You understand that MANY more have been saved in NT times, don't you? I'm not just talking in terms of raw numbers, but the percentages of people overall. You don't think that has anything to do with Satan's powers being limited and restrained in NT times compared to OT times? If so, then what in the world is Hebrews 2:14-15 about? He had the power of death taken away from him by Christ to no effect? What is Acts 26:14-18 about where it talks about how Jesus called Paul to turn the Gentiles "from the power of Satan to God"? Was anyone doing that in OT times? No. But, you (seemingly) think that there has been no real difference in Satan's ability in NT times compared to OT times? That's not what scripture indicates.As far as Satan’s abilities: In the OT he was a heavenly prosecutor and in the NT he is an earthly persecutor.
You base it on the same assumption that Premils make, which is that if he is active at all then he can't be bound.You base Satan’s little season on highly debatable texts such as revelation 20 and 2 Thessalonians 2. I base Satan’s little season on passages such as Ephesians 2:1-2, 1 Peter 5:8, 1 Timothy 5:15, revelation 2:10, 13, 2 Corinthians 11:14, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Romans 16:20. So to say I base it on nothing at all, is completely untrue.
Everything you said here would be true about his view if only you were accurately representing his view, which I don't think you are (but I'm not certain since I find his view to be very convoluted).Hopefully you can at least follow what I'm trying to say below, even if you end up disagreeing, where I suspect you likely will since Premil appears to be the only solution here, as I try to explain below.
If satan's little season is pertaining to this age, though I tend to disagree that it is, these passages you supplied in support of that are perfectly reasonable, thus make perfect sense. Once again, assuming satan's little season is indeed pertaining to this age.
Where the problem lies with this view though, the thousand years have to precede satan's little season. Which then means you need to find an era of time where none of those verses you submitted, were true yet, since the thousand years would have to fit an era of time that those verses you supplied can't fit. This is where Premil comes to the rescue since it can produce an era of time those verses you submitted can't fit.
Therefore, unless you can produce an era of time where those verses you submitted can't fit, you are in the same boat these other Amils are in. You can only produce an era of time where those verses you submitted can fit, and that you can't also produce an era of time where those verses can't fit. Obviously, the era of time involving the thousand years can't be the same era of time involving satan's little season, and that the thousand years have to precede satan's little season.
I don't see it being reasonable that there can be an era of time involving satan's little season, thus the verses you submitted, once again, that assuming satan's little season pertains to this age, while there is not an era of time that can fit the thousand years, meaning an era of time not involving any of the verses you submitted. Premil solves this dilemma, IMO.
BTW, can't you see what you are basically doing here? On one hand you are denying that there is an actual era of time involving the thousand years, while OTOH you are confirming eras of time are connected with these things, the fact you are applying passages to that of satan's little season, where those passages that you supplied are literally involving eras of time.
For example. 1 Peter 5:8. Are those things still going to be applicable once satan is cast into the LOF? Obviously, no. Shouldn't the same be true regarding the thousand years? If, when satan is in the LOF, it involves a literal era of time, why would it not also be involving an era of time when he is in the pit? Is not, when satan is cast into the LOF, also an era of time since the text indicates he will be tormented there forever and ever? Obviously then, if you are applying 1 Peter 5:8 to satan's little season, you are then implying that satan's little season involves a literal era of time, the fact 1 Peter 5:8 obviously involves a literal era of time. Logic then says, if satan's little season involves a literal era of time, then so must the thousand years involve a literal era of time, otherwise, that interpreter is not being consistent.
But if revelation is not brand new information, but symbolic for what was already taught in the gospels and epistles, how do we make revelation 20’s chronology fit with what the apostles taught would occur ?
It isn't that hard to understand, though, so I stand by what I said. I think it's rather convenient for you to just throw out that verse. You didn't respond to what I said about it. Why not? Can you give me your thoughts? I will repeat what I had said about this and I'd like to know what you think.Well that’s not an honest assessment of what I at all. In the critical text, it has present tense. In the textus receptus it has a future tense verb. I threw it out because I’m not interested in debating which manuscript is right, not because the “it doesn’t support my view”. The critical text does support my view.
This is always fun. You think it means "is", I think it means "will be". Some translations have "is" and some have "will be".Paul said the man of sins presence “is” (present tense verb) by the works of Satan, not “will be” as in future tense. This is consistent with Paul stating mystery of lawlessness was already at work.
I see it as him pointing out things that were already at work, but would get significantly worse at some point in the future before the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him.Of course Paul wasn’t pointing out “obvious” things. He was calling out secret things that were already at work, that would eventually be revealed.
Maybe not using those words, but there is something mentioned about Satan working "with all power and signs and lying wonders" after previously not working "with all power and signs and lying wonders" because that only happens after "the one who now holds it back...is taken out of the way".but something, that the Thessalonians already knew, was restraining that revealing. The “mystery” and “revealing” were being restrained. So grammatically, when the restrainer is out of the way, the man of sin, whose presence was already by the working of Satan and whose mystery of lawlessness was already at work, would be revealed. There is nothing mentioned about Satan being loosed or bound.
Be careful how you interpret terms like "the last hour". We know from other scripture that "the last days" refer to the entire New Testament era since they had started already by the time the day of Pentecost occurred long ago (Acts 2:16-21) and continue up until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).As to the “mass” falling away - already happening in the first century according to John. “Many” antichrists had come and gone out from the church that’s how they knew it was the “last hour” - 1 John 2:18-19.
But, what do you think was the result of Satan's house being plundered and his power over death being taken away by Christ? Do you think they were not long lasting effects? It seems that you think those things didn't really have any effect on Satan, but please explain what effects, if any, you think those things had and how long did those effects last?We’ve already agreed that Satan was bound so that his house could be plundered, and that his power over death was annulled.
They have more than that in common, though that isn't just a minor thing to have in common.For the time being since I don't have any solutions for you there, the fact I disagree with the timing of the thousand years and satan's little season per the take of some Amil views, let's consider one already proposed, nonetheless, one that you are already arguing against.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
Could this support the thousand years followed by satan's little season? Could verse 7 basically be saying and meaning this---For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only the thousand years are currently restraining it from becoming full force, until satan is released from the pit and is fully out in the open and in the midst. Or something along those lines, keeping in mind what 'taken' and 'way' typically means in the Greek. I could be wrong, but I think 'taken', ginomai in the Greek, is never meaning how we typically take 'taken' to mean in the English language. That aside, right or wrong.
But lets assume verse 7 can basically be understood like I proposed above. Let's next look at Revelation 20:7-9. But first let's look at the following in 2 Thessalonians 2 since this would obviously have to be involving satan's little season per this scenario.
2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Compared with.
Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
In what way is anything recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 depicting anything recorded in Revelation 20:7-9? IOW, how is what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 an example, in any sense, of the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, being deceived by satan to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they then going up on the breadth of the earth, and compassing the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city? If that is what 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 depicting, what is recorded in Revelation 20:7-9, I would have never guessed that in a million years, so, don't know how anyone else could have.
But they do have deception in common, I give it that, except when it comes to satan, that is what he is all about to begin with, deception, except when he is in the pit and when he is cast into the LOF.
Amils don't believe it's talking about him being literally chained up in a pit and Premils do. That's obviously a major difference in our views.Deception no longer benefits him per those scenarios. Except some Amils insist deception still benefits him to some degree while in the pit, though.
So, I accused you of being deceptive and falsely representing what I said and you don't even deny it. And you don't even apologize for doing that. Interesting.
I already know that you don't accept the passages I use to support my understanding of Satan's binding, so it's pointless for you to continue asking for that. I've told you several times already that it's not going to happen in the way you want. But, as I said in another post, we can determine the timing of the reign of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment with other scripture and we can use those things to help determine the timing of Satan's little season as well. But, do you care about that? Nah.
You just need proof showing that Satan would be bound at Christ's resurrection for a thousand years (or a long time) and nothing short of that can convince you. So be happy with your interpretation of Revelation 20 that you share with maybe 2 or 3 other people in the world then if you're comfortable with that.
They have more than that in common, though that isn't just a minor thing to have in common.
2 Thess 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
Would you agree that what is described here was something that Paul was saying was not happening at the time, but would occur in the future?
If so, would you agree that the timing of this is the same as the timing of the falling away that Paul talked about?
If so, can you see here that this is talking about something relating to Satan that was not happening at that time back then, but would happen in the future?
The question is, is it talking about him being bound from doing anything or is it only talking about him being bound from doing certain things?
You are in the same boat as premils as you cannot provide any clear gospel or epistolic passages that teach Satan is bound for a long period of time to then released for a little season.
It isn't that hard to understand, though, so I stand by what I said. I think it's rather convenient for you to just throw out that verse. You didn't respond to what I said about it. Why not? Can you give me your thoughts? I will repeat what I had said about this and I'd like to know what you think.
As for the past tense of "did not receive the truth", the verse in which that is contained is still speaking in the future tense.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
So, God sending strong delusion is future, them believing a lie after the strong delusion is sent is future, and them being damned is future. The reason that the reference to those who "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" is in past tense is because Paul was speaking from the standpoint of the time after God's strong delusion and them believing the lie had occurred. That's the only way to read the text as a whole where it can make sense. Otherwise, he was first talking about something happening in the future (them believing a lie) and then saying it happened already in the past (believed not the truth)? That obviously would make no sense at all.
Since he was clearly talking about a future event of God sending strong delusion and people believing a lie in verse 11, then verse 12 has to be interpreted in that context.
This is always fun. You think it means "is", I think it means "will be". Some translations have "is" and some have "will be".
But, I see a differentiation between the man of sin in general and the man of sin being aided by the works of Satan "with all power and signs and lying wonders". It seems to me that while lawlessness was already at work, it was not at work "with all power and signs and lying wonders", but rather was retrained before being unleashed with "all power" because "the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way". I don't see any indication that the works of Satan were operating with "all power" at the time Paul wrote that.
In the original grammar, no. It’s only “interpreted” that way by some, not all, English translators.Maybe not using those words, but there is something mentioned about Satan working "with all power and signs and lying wonders" after previously not working "with all power and signs and lying wonders" because that only happens after "the one who now holds it back...is taken out of the way".
I see it as him pointing out things that were already at work, but would get significantly worse at some point in the future before the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him.
Paul very specifically said that the falling away and revealing of the man of sin had to occur first before the second coming of Christ, so that indicates that he was talking about things that, not only had to occur before His second coming, but would be signs that His second coming was near. But, if he was talking about a falling away and revealing of the man of sin that were happening already back then (or would happen soon) that would be signs of the soon coming of Christ, then that means you are denying the coming of Christ and gathering to Him that Paul referenced is a future event. That makes it so that I can't take your view seriously since His coming and our being gathered to Him ("in the air" - 1 Thess 4:14-17) has clearly not happened yet.
Be careful how you interpret terms like "the last hour". We know from other scripture that "the last days" refer to the entire New Testament era since they had started already by the time the day of Pentecost occurred long ago (Acts 2:16-21) and continue up until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).
Anyway, Paul referred to the mass falling away as having to occur first before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him which has not yet happened. So, if what John was talking about was the falling away that Paul wrote about, that would mean Paul was saying a falling away had to happen first before the second coming of Christ, but he wasn't indicating that it would happen shortly before His second coming. What would be the point of that? Was he really saying that something had to happen first, but may happen a long time before His coming and our being gathered to him? No, I think it's clear that he was saying not only did it have to happen first but it would happen shortly before and up until the second coming of Christ.
So, again, I think the biggest difference in our views of 2 Thessalonians 2 is not our understanding of the falling away or the revealing of the man of sin, but rather is the difference in our understanding of what Paul was referring to when he referenced Christ's coming and our being gathered to Him. I believe that is clearly a future event (same event as 1 Thess 4:14-17), but you don't. My starting point for understanding 2 Thessalonians 2 is my understanding of the timing of His coming and our being gathered to Him, which I believe is very clearly a future event. I interpret the rest of the passage in light of that.
But, what do you think was the result of Satan's house being plundered and his power over death being taken away by Christ? Do you think they were not long lasting effects? It seems that you think those things didn't really have any effect on Satan, but please explain what effects, if any, you think those things had and how long did those effects last?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?